Evidence Underlying Recommendations and Payments from Industry to Authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines

Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to Medical Oncologists in the Netherlands: Trends and Patterns Provided by an Open-Access Transparency Data Set

PURPOSE

Health care expenditure related to oncologic treatments is skyrocketing although many treatments offer marginal, if any, clinical benefit. Financial conflicts of interest (fCOI) resulting from pharmaceutical industry (pharma) payments to physicians is increasingly recognized as a predictive factor for regulatory board approval and guideline incorporation of low-value treatments. We sought to study the extent to which pharma payments to medical oncologists occur in the Netherlands, the amount of money involved, and whether these occur more frequently and are higher for key opinion leaders (KOLs).

METHODS

In our cross-sectional retrospective database study, we used several Dutch open-access databases and extracted data registered between 2019 and 2021.

RESULTS

A cumulative amount of €899,863 was paid to 48.8% of the 408 registered medical oncologists. Over time, there was a marked decline in both the proportion of medical oncologists receiving payments (from 40.4% in 2019 to 19.1% in 2021) and the mean annual value of payments (from €2,962 in 2019 to €2,188 in 2021) with the latter mainly resulting from a decline in hospitality-related transactions. KOLs were more likely to receive industry payments and received a higher median payment value.

DISCUSSION

Our findings should contribute to the increasing awareness in the Netherlands of the potential effects of fCOI.

Bacterial spectrum and antimicrobial resistance pattern in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Bloodstream infections are serious complications in neutropenic cancer patients. There has been a universal pickup in multidrug resistant (MDR) strains. For individuals who are at high risk for infections caused by MDR bacteria, a novel de-escalation strategy has been developed. Determine the bacterial spectrum and antibiotic resistance pattern in febrile neutropenic cancer patients was the goal of this investigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 2019 to 2020, 60 cancer patients with febrile neutropenia who were sent to Isfahan's Omid Hospital were included in this retrospective analysis. Experiments were done on the antimicrobial susceptibility of isolated bacterial infections.

RESULTS

The patients' average age was 43.35±15.59 years. Ninety-one percent (55/61) of the 60 patients had hematologic malignancies, and 8.3 percent (5/61) had solid tumors. The majority of the germs were gram-negative bacteria (66.7 percent). E. coli was the pathogen that was isolated the most frequently (26.7%), followed by Klebsiella (16.7 percent). In addition, the most prevalent identified Gram-positive bacteria was Staphylococcus epidermidis (21.7 percent). Third-generation cephalosporin (ESBL-E) resistance was present in 50% of E. coli, along with 50% resistance to cotrimoxazole, ciprofloxacin, and piperacillin, 31% resistance to amikacin, and 20% resistance to meropenem (CRE). They had an 80% sensitivity to amikacin and a 70% sensitivity to ciprofloxacin. Ten percent of our patients had antibiotic resistance in the antibiogram (XDR).

CONCLUSION

In summary, most bacterial infections were resistant to different medications. The emergence and spread of Gram-negative bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics can be stopped by prudent antibiotic use.

Levels of Evidence for Radiation Therapy Recommendations in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Guidelines

Purpose

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical guidelines influence medical practice, payor coverage, and standards of care. The levels of evidence underlying radiation therapy recommendations in NCCN have not been systematically explored. Herein, we aim to systematically investigate the NCCN recommendations pertaining to the categories of consensus and evidence (CE) for radiation therapy.

Methods and Materials

We evaluated the distribution of CE underlying current treatment recommendations for the 20 most prevalent cancers in the United States with at least 10 radiation therapy recommendations in the NCCN clinical guidelines. For context, the distribution of evidence in the radiation therapy guidelines was compared with that of systemic therapy using a χ² test. The proportion of category I CE between radiation and systemic therapy was compared using a 2-proportion, 2-tailed z-test in total and for each disease site. A P value of < .05 was considered significant.

Results

Among all radiation therapy recommendations, the proportions of category I, IIA, IIB, and III CE were 9.7%, 80.6%, 8.4%, and 1.3%, respectively. When analyzed by disease site, cervix and breast cancer had the highest portion of category I CE (33% and 31%, respectively). There was no radiation therapy category I CE for hepatobiliary, bone, pancreatic, melanoma, and uterine cancers. There was a significant difference in the distribution of CE between the systemic therapy recommendations and the radiation therapy recommendations (χ² statistic 64.16, P < .001). Overall, there was a significantly higher proportion of category I CE in the systemic therapy recommendations compared with the radiation therapy recommendations (12.3% vs 9.7%, P = .043).

Conclusions

Only 9.7% of radiation therapy recommendations in NCCN guidelines are category I CE. The highest levels of evidence for radiation therapy are in breast and cervical cancers. Despite major advances in the field, these data underline that the majority of NCCN radiation therapy recommendations are based on uniform expert opinion and not on higher level evidence.

Are NCCN Resource-Stratified Guidelines for Breast Cancer Systemic Therapy Achievable? A Population-Based Study of Global Need and Economic Impact

PURPOSE

Resource-stratified guidelines (RSG) for cancer provide a hierarchy of interventions, based on resource availability. We quantify treatment need and cost if National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) RSGs for breast cancer (BC) are adopted globally.

METHODS

We developed decision trees for first-course systemic therapy, merged with SEER and Global Cancer Observatory 2018 incidence data to estimate treatment need and cost if NCCN RSG are implemented globally based on country-level income. Simulations were used to quantify need and cost of globally scaling up services to Maximal.

RESULTS

Based on NCCN RSG, first-course chemotherapy is indicated in 0% (Basic), 87% (Core), and 86% (Enhanced) but declined to 50% (Maximal) because of incorporation of genomic profiling. First-course endocrine therapy (ET) is indicated in 80% in all settings. In 2018, treatment need was 1.4 million people for chemotherapy, 183,943 for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapies and 1.6 million for ET. The cost per person for chemotherapy or HER2 or immunotherapy increased by 17-fold from Core to Maximal ($1,278-$22,313 Australian dollars [AUD]). The cost of ET per person rose eight-fold from Basic to Maximal ($1,236-$9,809 AUD). If all patients with BC globally were treated with Maximal resources, the need for chemotherapy would decline by 28%, whereas cost of first-course treatment would rise by 1.8-fold ($21-$37 billion AUD) because of more costly therapies.

CONCLUSION

NCCN RSGs for BC could result in chemotherapy overtreatment in Core and Enhanced settings. The absence of chemotherapy in Basic settings should be reconsidered, and future iterations of RSG should perform cross-tumor comparisons to ensure equitable resource distribution and maximize population-level outcomes. Our model is flexible and can be tailored to the costs, population attributes, and resource availability of any institution or country for health-services planning.

Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Systematic Review

Objective

To systematically evaluate the prevalence of disclosed and undisclosed financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) among clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).

Methods

In this systematic review, we ascertained the prevalence and types of FCOI for CPGs from January 1, 1980, to March 3, 2019. The primary outcome was the prevalence of FCOI among authors of CPGs. FCOI disclosures were compared between medical subspecialties and societies producing CPGs.

Results

Among the 37 studies including 14,764 total guideline authors, 45% had at least one FCOI. The prevalence of FCOI per study ranged from 6% to 100%. More authors had FCOI involving general payments (39%) compared with research payments (29%). Oncology, neurology, and gastroenterology had the highest prevalence of FCOI compared with other medical specialties. Among the 8 studies that included the monetary values in US dollars of FCOI, average payments per author ranged from $578 to $242,300. Among the 10 studies that included data on undisclosed FCOI, 32% of authors had undisclosed industry payments.

Conclusion

There are numerous FCOI among authors of CPGs, many of which are undisclosed. Our study found a significant difference in FCOI prevalence based on types of FCOI and CPG sponsor society. Additional research is required to quantify the implications of FCOI on clinical judgment and patient care.

•

Financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) may have an impact on the objectivity of clinical practice guidelines.

•

Among the 37 studies included in this systematic review, 45% of the 14,764 guideline authors had an FCOI.

•

Authors of oncology, neurology, and gastroenterology guidelines had higher prevalence of FCOI compared with other guidelines.

•

Eight studies included monetary value of FCOI, which ranged from $578 to $242,300 per author.

•

Little is known about the direct impact of FCOI on how authors of clinical practice guidelines vote on recommendations during guideline development.

Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: associations with recommendations

BACKGROUND

Treatment and diagnostic recommendations are often made in clinical guidelines, reports from advisory committee meetings, opinion pieces such as editorials, and narrative reviews. Quite often, the authors or members of advisory committees have industry ties or particular specialty interests which may impact on which interventions are recommended. Similarly, clinical guidelines and narrative reviews may be funded by industry sources resulting in conflicts of interest.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate to what degree financial and non-financial conflicts of interest are associated with favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register for studies published up to February 2020. We also searched reference lists of included studies, Web of Science for studies citing the included studies, and grey literature sources.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies comparing the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations of drugs or devices (e.g. recommending a particular drug) in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, or narrative reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently included studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. When a meta-analysis was considered meaningful to synthesise our findings, we used random-effects models to estimate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with RR > 1 indicating that documents (e.g. clinical guidelines) with conflicts of interest more often had favourable recommendations. We analysed associations for financial and non-financial conflicts of interest separately, and analysed the four types of documents both separately (pre-planned analyses) and combined (post hoc analysis).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies analysing 106 clinical guidelines, 1809 advisory committee reports, 340 opinion pieces, and 497 narrative reviews. We received unpublished data from 11 studies; eight full data sets and three summary data sets. Fifteen studies had a risk of confounding, as they compared documents that may differ in other aspects than conflicts of interest (e.g. documents on different drugs used for different populations). The associations between financial conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations were: clinical guidelines, RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.69 (four studies of 86 clinical guidelines); advisory committee reports, RR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.45 (four studies of 629 advisory committee reports); opinion pieces, RR: 2.62, 95% CI: 0.91 to 7.55 (four studies of 284 opinion pieces); and narrative reviews, RR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.49 (four studies of 457 narrative reviews). An analysis combining all four document types supported these findings (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.44). One study investigating specialty interests found that the association between including radiologist guideline authors and recommending routine breast cancer screening was RR: 2.10, 95% CI: 0.92 to 4.77 (12 clinical guidelines).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We interpret our findings to indicate that financial conflicts of interest are associated with favourable recommendations of drugs and devices in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews. However, we also stress risk of confounding in the included studies and the statistical imprecision of individual analyses of each document type. It is not certain whether non-financial conflicts of interest impact on recommendations.

Evidence-Based Medicine in Oncology: Commercial Versus Patient Benefit

At times of personalized and individualized medicine the concept of randomized- controlled clinical trials (RCTs) is being questioned. This review article explains principles of evidence-based medicine in oncology and shows an example of how evidence can be generated independently from RCTs. Personalized medicine involves molecular analysis of tumor properties and targeted therapy with small molecule inhibitors. Individualized medicine involves the whole patient (tumor and host) in the context of immunotherapy. The example is called Individualized Multimodal Immunotherapy (IMI). It is based on the individuality of immunological tumor-host interactions and on the concept of immunogenic tumor cell death (ICD) induced by an oncolytic virus. The evidence is generated by systematic data collection and analysis. The outcome is then shared with the scientific and medical community. The priority of big pharma studies is commercial benefit. Methods used to achieve this are described and have damaged the image of RCT studies in general. A critical discussion is recommended between all partners of the medical health system with regard to the conduct of RCTs by big pharma companies. Several clinics and institutions in Europe try to become more independent from pharma industry and to develop their own modern cancer therapeutics. Medical associations should include references to such studies from personalized and individualized medicine in their guidelines.

Position paper: new insights into the immunobiology and dynamics of tumor-host interactions require adaptations of clinical studies

INTRODUCTION

Prospective double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered standard for the proof of the efficacy of oncologic therapies. Molecular methods have provided new insights into tumor biology and led to the development of targeted therapies. Due to the increasing complexity of molecular tumor characteristics and of the individuality of specific anti-tumor immune reactivity, RCTs are unfortunately only of limited use.

AREAS COVERED

The historical methods of drug research and approval and the related practices of reimbursement by statutory and private health insurance companies are being questioned. New, innovative methods for the documentation of evidence in personalized medicine will be addressed. Possible perspectives and new approaches are discussed, in particular with regard to glioblastoma.

EXPERT OPINION

Highly specialized translational oncology groups like the IOZK can contribute to medical progress and quick transfer 'from bench to bedside.' Their contribution should be acknowledged and taken into account more strongly in the development of guidelines and the reimbursement of therapy costs. Methodological plurality should be encouraged.